Actually, Arika may in fact have a case under Japan law. Whether this applies outside of japan is another matter

Japanlaw said:

DESIGN RIGHTS

The Meaning of Design Rights

A design is the form, shape, color or a combination of these of a good, in toto or in part, that causes a sense of beauty. In this case, a good is an object that can be transported. As such, real property can not qualify as well as intangibles. A design right can be obtained by attaching a drawing of the design to the application made to the Patent Agency. Then if the design meets the standards of industrial utility, newness and creativity it can be registered. The meaning of industrial utility means that it can be mass produced by industrial production methods, thus making handicrafts made by hand ineligible, although that could be eligible for copyright protection. The holder of a design right can seek an injunction against those who "use" the design without authorization, as well as seeking compensatory damages. On top of this there are economic benefits such as the ability to license it to others, sell it, or use it as collateral. Here, "use" the design means to manufacture, use, transfer, lend, or import products using the design. The right is valid even against those who are unaware of its existence. The term of protection of the design right is 15 years from the date of registration.

Infringement of Design Rights.

An infringement of a design right is the use of a design previously registered by another party, or of a similar design. The rights holder can seek an injunction stopping sales as well as demand compensatory damages. On top of that, in particularly egregious cases, criminal sanctions of up to 3 years in prison or 3 million yen in damages can also be imposed. The standard for determining whether a design right has been infringed is based on feelings of beauty and confusion, which, being highly subjective, even causes disputes among experts, similar to the situation for trademarks. Here, the beauty standard revolves in many ways around originality, while the confusion standard revolves around whether there is confusion among consumers. For the courts it appears that the element of confusion among consumers has great import.

Click to expand...

video games can be protected with design rights. If you look theough japanese copyright cases with regards to cloned video games, you will see references to designs. If the cloned game is a thing of beauty, and could be confused with the original, it may infringe on the registered design rights. Making ithis decision is not the easiest thing in the world, and often it takes a while to get through the courts, but the intent is clear. If you make a video game that is sufficiently marketable, original, and creative, you can register the design and prevent people from cloning it for 15 years. Even if the graphics, sound, and code are not copied, if you duplicate the gameplay exactly, the protected design is used, and that is a violation.

However, one that is merely inspired by, but not the same (witness the many different variations of tetris out there) does NOT infringe on the design right. Mihara's respect for unnoficial tetris games that don't clone his game, such as DTET and GTET, is well inline with this interpretation.

video games can be protected with design rights. If you look theough japanese copyright cases with regards to cloned video games, you will see references to designs. If the cloned game is a thing of beauty, and could be confused with the original, it may infringe on the registered design rights.

Click to expand...

The United States also has registered designs, which it calls "design patents". Unlike a copyright, a registered design isn't automatic upon creation; the inventor must apply for it in each country. In this case, the patent scene from the video (starts at 1:31, after the second set of flags) shows that the USPTO never never granted TTC any U.S. patents or U.S. registered designs. (The video doesn't test Arika as an assignee, only "Tetris" and "Elorg", but USPTO.gov returns 0 results for Arika as well.) The question now becomes whether TTC or Arika applied for a registered design in Japan.

zaphod77 said:

Mihara's respect for unnoficial tetris games that don't clone his game, such as DTET and GTET, is well inline with this interpretation.

Click to expand...

Which is part of why I'm not defining the scope of Lockjaw to go as far as some cloners in replicating TGM, especially the fill/drain grade point system of TAP and Ti.

the main issue here is that gameplay mechanics must be non obvious to be patented in the US.

There is no such requirement for a registered design in the japanese copyright law that I can see. instead, they must be "things of beauty" and they must be creative, novel, and have industrial utility. And it seems GM qualifies to me.